“Top hat plans” have many attractive features, but a new court decision is a reminder that top hat plan participants have limited protections under ERISA – and that assets held in a rabbi trust are not protected from the claims of creditors upon the employer’s bankruptcy or insolvency.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Dec. 6, 2016)

Two recent federal court decisions establish that managers of financially troubled Missouri limited liability companies do not owe a fiduciary duty to creditors of their troubled enterprises. Imperial Zinc Corp. v. Engineered Products Industries, L.L.C., No. 4:14-CV-1015-AGF, 2016 WL 812695 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 2, 2016); Imperial Zinc Corp. v. Engineered Products Industries, L.L.C., No. 4:16-CV-551-RWS, 2016 W 6611129 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 9, 2016).

On appeal from a decision in the In re Energy Future Holdings Corp. bankruptcy case, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that contractual make-whole premium provisions are enforceable where the obligation to repay bond debt is accelerated by a bankruptcy filing.

In a prior post, we discussed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Jevic Holding Corp., where the court upheld the use of so-called “structured dismissals” in bankruptcy cases, and the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jevic. The Court’s ultimate ruling will likely have a significant impact upon bankruptcy practice.

The Supreme Court is considering whether to grant review of two bankruptcy cases. On October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States. Because the Supreme Court’s justices normally give significant weight to the federal government’s recommendations regarding interpretations of federal statutes (here, the Bankruptcy Code), the Solicitor General’s forthcoming briefs could influence whether the Supreme Court grants cert. on the two notable bankruptcy cases.

Southwest Securities v. Segner

Originally published in the New York Law Journal

Voters in eight states, including California and Florida, recently approved ballot initiatives to legalize the recreational and medical use of marijuana. Presently, 28 states permit the use of marijuana to different extents.

The concept of “equitable mootness” is a doctrine of relatively long-standing in bankruptcy jurisprudence. It has been used by courts to avoid determination of issues raised on appeal that would require the unscrambling of a plan previously confirmed and implemented. However, that doctrine has recently been questioned in a variety of decisions. It appears that the scope of equitable mootness is clearly ebbing. In that context, a recent decision by this Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals provides an opportunity to further examine the doctrine.

 The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld summary judgment dismissing all claims against an insurer based on a bankruptcy and creditors exclusion in the insured’s directors and officers (“D&O”) policy. Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Huibert Verbeek, No. 1:15-51099 (5th Cir. Sept. 27, 2016).

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Nov. 29, 2016)